Re:virus: Re: virus-digest V3 #51

joe dees (
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:19:03 -0500

At Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:04:37 -0500, you wrote:
>>Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:57:58 -0500
>>From: "joe dees" <>
>>Subject: Re:virus: Nothing
>>>"You don't have a clue what Dan thinks."
>>Au Contraire; Dan has written many tomes..
>Well, we disagree on our interpretation.
>>>Furthermore.if he did agree with you, you would
>>>both be wrong and I'd be disappointed in him.
>>>becuase I expect someone brilliant enough to write
>>>the books he does to know better.
>>You'd be disappointed in his error any time his
>>opinions differed from your own? Methinks your
>>egotistical pudendum is showing here.
>What does "pudendum" mean? What I meant is
>that if Dennett made the same claim to rationality
>while being so obviously the way you
>are..I would be quite shaken.
But you claim that my being too logical is a difficulty. I really like Dennett
>and find much meaning in what he says. I presume
>he is flexible enough to allow the word "faith" in
>a conversation without vomiting up a bunch of
>vile negative memes. He might not agree with me,
>but I presume his tactics would be much different
>than yours. It's just my opinion.
>>You may withdraw into delusion, but when you do
>>, you still lose; it's just you are not aware of it, but
>>everyone who does not share your delusion is.
>Too true. But, in a sense, we are all deluded, anyway.
>No one has an unbiased perspective, which is why
>we should do our best to unify across the divides.

This makes logical sense, in that intersubjective perspectives get to contrast and compare for internal consistency and external coherency, thus ending up mure complete and less error-prone than purely subjective ones (assunimg we're talking about consilience between autonomously minded individuals, and not the cultic mimicry of a bunch of dittoheads).

>>>"Look, you don't have any special access to Truth.
>>>If you keep saying all these silly things then you
>>>should expect the rest of us to resist you every
>>>step of the way. And don't think violence will
>>>deter us.just becuase we are rational doesn't
>>>mean we won't do whatever it takes to preserve
>>>freedom of expression. Our lives and liberty
>>>are less important to us that the well being of
>>>the collective. Oh, and don't think that you have
>>>some special right to preserve the ways of your
>>>father by imposing them upon your children.
>>>We are all in this together, and they are our
>>>children, also, to love, protect, and teach as best
>>>we can."
>>>Like I said, he is one bad ass philosopher.
>>Check out my post about the spread of Islam in
>>response to Prof. Tim; I said much the same thing there.
>But you don't recognize that dogmatic rationalism can
>also become a toxic frame of mind. Can you admit that
>Reason can be put to evil purposes? Can you accept that
>Faith might be put to good ones? I'm asking for you to
>imagine that these things could be "in principle". Can you?

Yes, in principle, this is true. In practice, however, I see a preponderance of the evil actions in the world motivated by fanatical and misguided faithmongers turning the morally neutral fruits of technological innovation to terroristic, coercive and destructive ends, and most of the good actions resulting from the cooperation of people of good will attempting to be reasonable with each other.

>>>Richard has already countered that argument. We are
>>>all human, does this make the word "human" meaningless?
>>Is the planet Uranus human? Are donkeys human? Is a
>>magnolia tree, a mountain, or a river human? There
>>are plenty of entities to contrast "human" with (in fact
>>the overwhelming preponderance in the Universe), and
>>that fact grants the word its meaning. I'm disappointed
>>in you here, Reed. If you couldn't have come up with a
>>better argument than this one you should have practiced
>>the wiser course of forbearance.
>God grant me strength in this my hour of need..
>he speaks of my need for "forebearance"!
>Look, you can't make me mad at you. Insult me, call me
>foolish, call me mad. I'm just going to smile and say
>Those things are not human, but each can be understood
>fruitfully from an anthropomorphic perspective. We
>can personify each to give it meaning. Why do you think
>the planet is NAMED "Uranus" and not "X442245" We
>relate to everything though the framework of our human
>perspective. Logic is just one way of communicating that
>translation, a rigorous formal one. It is excellent for some
>purposes and useless for others. Why can't you accept
>a conditional on this point? I'm not asking you to capitulate
>to any idea or rule except that, usually, the meaning of
>something "depends" on more than a simplistic general
>rule. It depends..that's all. I don't understand what is
>so hard about "it depends". Are you afraid of the thin
>end of the wedge? Are you THAT afraid?

It depends not only on the structure, form or syntax (logic), but also on the semantic meaning relations holding the positions in that struchure (value).

>>>>If you believe in error, you will lose.
>>>Interesting.I see your point. That's a dangerous
>>>statement, though, becuase one interpretation points
>>>toward light and other towards darkness. It's a test
>>>of will you interpret me?
>>>I interpret it as:
>>>"If you don't have faith in yourself, then you can't
>>No. If you have a faith in your position that is
>>contradicted by the facts of the matter, you will
>>still lose (though you may sail up the Egyptian
>>River of Denial about it).
>OK..look, in the interest of cordial relations, I'll
>fiat. How do you know when you have lost? Who
>has the authority to tap you on the shoulder and say
>"hey, buddy, give it rest". This isn't a formal debate,
>there are no rules and no judges.

Well, if I'm in a dark room arguing that the bicycle doesn't have a seat, and you're arguing that it does, and to prove your point, you jump on it, and you scream and curse your bloody hemorrhoids, would that kinda tap do it? - after hearing same, I, at least, would not change my mind and attempt that jump. Reality has a way of intervening, and it cares neither for beliefs nor for those who hold them; only other people care for these things (although I'll grant you, that can make a big difference to one's personal reality, particularly if one is on the wrong end of a religious cleansing). It all depends upon whether or not you are willing to let other people dictate the grind of the lens through which you view your own reality or not.

>I would assert that you have to tell yourself when
>you've had enough. But if, in your reflective moment,
>you have established a principle as core to your beliefs
>you would be foolish to let someone bully you
>into thinking differently or acting out of sorts.
>That doesn't mean you don't think seriously about
>what people say to you. I just means that, at the
>moment of confrontation, you have to throw everything
>into fray..and then some. It's like a marathon, if
>you aren't sick and puking by the end, then you
>didn't really give it all you could.
>Again, at that moment of confrontation. That can be
>a short moment, followed quickly by a moment of
>reflection. Or, if you understand what Level 3 means,
>you can reflect AND confront simultaneously. Practice
>makes perfect. First you do one, then the other. With
>enough practice, you start to multi-task.

Sociologists and cultural anthropologists have been doing this for years; immersion via provisional suspension of disbelief, followed by experiential structural/functional analysis.

>>>If A then ~B
>>>If B then ~A
>>>If C then ~A, ~B
>>>If A then ~C
>>>If B then ~C
>>>Those are the premises.
>>>I assert:
>>>If ~A, ~B then either C or ~C
>>>Look, this abstract shit is boring me. I do
>>>it at work all the time, could we talk about
>>>people instead?
>>Sure, but A v B v C, or to say it another way
>>~(A*B), ~(B*C), and ~(A*C), were assumed
>> (that truth, falsehood and meaninglessness
>>were mutually exclusive categories),
>I didn't make that you see it
>is not in my set of premises. If you wish to
>establish that, then you need to take ANOTHER
>step backwards. How do you know the categories
>are, in fact, exclusive? Your "logic" is nothing
>but a foundationless tower of assertions.
>>and that ~D (there is no statement which is
>>neither true nor false nor meaningless).
>Ooh. That is deep! Since I can't think of
>a good reason why that shouldn't be the case,
>sure, I'll agree with ~D. I'm still not giving
>you the "mutually exclusive" though
>For instance:
>"He who hesitates is lost" (is last?)
>"Look before you leap" (If you still always leap, what good does it do?)

These are heueristics; general rules which are true or false depending upon the particular situation to which they're applied.

>Aphorisms..sometimes they are true, sometimes
>they are false, sometimes they are meaningful,
>sometimes they just remind you of
>say, Richard's book [OK, shamless plug! Ha!
>sue me!] for no reason you can put your finger
>Can we make a new relationship?
>Where # denotes A evoking an idea B becuase the
>two are associated in your mind. For instance,
>in your case, we could say:
>Faith # Nazis # Jim Jones # evil #..
>and so forth
>for me we could say
>Faith # Happiness # Reason
>In other words, faith makes me think of happy, which
>makes me think of reason, the other thing which makes
>me happy.

I have a hard time fitting faith and reason into congruent compartments.

>Or do you only do formal systems that "real" philosophers

I do create my own, but they're pretty formal too (I'm working on a relational logic, now).

>>I should have restated these in the premises, but if you
>>disagree with them, it is up to you to provide a disproving
>>counterexample, or admit that you can't.
>That would only be true if I were trying to convince you
>using formal logic, which I'm not. I can disagree and I
>have the freedom to let everyone know it. I don't have
>to justify my beliefs with you before communicating them
>to others. Your doctrine has no intrinsic merit, as our
>buddy Dan might say.

A v ~A, ~(A * ~A), if A then A, if ~A then~A have no intrinsic merit? Their merit is none other than their apodictic (self-evident) truth.

>>>>>You do understand! That was great!
>>>>I have understood for quite a while now;
>>>>the contention is about the things you do
>>>>not yet understand.
>>>Cool. What are they?
>>We're discussing them as these posts proceed.
>You have yet to tell me anything I didn't already
>understand. Oh, I take that back. Elide is a
>cool word.

Here's some more cool words. Ipseity=sense of self Velleity=whim which has yet to reach the status of a wish. Hope ya like 'em.
>>>>>The isn't over yet, is it? I still warming up.
>>>>Not until you submit or quit.
>>>"You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down,
>>>I shall become more powerful than you can
>>>possibly imagine." -Obi Wan Kenobi
>>> "Star Wars"
>>> George Lucas
>>"Come over to the logical side, Luke! I am your father!"
>>(Darth vader, paraphrased)
>"I'll never join you!" (which, in the end, of course is
>a half truth) Skywalker and his father are united in
>spirit, in the end. But it is Vader who moves.

But they were contending over two faith systems, one good, one evil, neither logical.

> Reed Konsler
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher

Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time. Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!